I would only replace "rich white men" with "people in power". Abusive government is an equal-opportunity-employer.

True.

The only reason I say that - and I realize it is somewhat of a stereotype - is that one could certainly argue that a majority of Congress are wealthy old white men. I mean, someone brought up Robert C. Byrd in the other thread...that dude was a senator for damn near 60 years.

The lack of turnover within Congress is really a big problem.

06-21-2013, 09:11 AM

JohnBKistler

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

The only reason I say that - and I realize it is somewhat of a stereotype - is that one could certainly argue that a majority of Congress are wealthy old white men. I mean, someone brought up Robert C. Byrd in the other thread...that dude was a senator for damn near 60 years.

The lack of turnover within Congress is really a big problem.

You are absolutely right. Historically, in America, the power has been in the hands of rich, white men. That is changing, and with it, the ones doing the abusing.

Look around the world...abuse of power does not recognize skin color.

06-21-2013, 09:51 AM

jonboy79

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Welfare should have nothing to do with race, and ideally it would not when people use the word. The point I am making, however, is that Republican politicians use this word to subtly refer to specific groups of people, like blacks. The word "handouts" is similar.

See Romney fucking up with his 47% comment. He said half the country is expecting "handouts" or something similar, but it can be very reasonably inferred that he was referring to black people, whose vote he mostly had to give up on trying to get.

Are you freaking kidding me? IF you add up all of the minorites combined you don't get nearly to 47%.... The only way that can possibly be construed is racist is by someone projecting their own beliefs on it.... Seriously... When I hear the word welfare or handouts the image of a trailer park in Dundlk comes up as often as a rowhome on north avenue...

06-21-2013, 10:43 AM

JohnBKistler

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

I find it utterly laughable the people (like aka) that truly think there is some big difference between the 2 governing parties. Maybe abortion and gay rights are the two I can come up with...but these are considered side-issues when the big policy questions arise. On just about all the major issues, while they may give lip service to one side or the other (to gain monetary contributions, votes, etc.), they are truly in lock-step when it comes to walking-the-walk:

Deficit spending
Social welfare
Foreign expansionism
"The War on Drugs"
"The War on Terror"
Gun control
etc...etc...etc.

The "occupy" movement was sorta on to this...but I think they missed their mark when they assumed it was BIG companies abusing the power, and that government (led by "The One") was on their side.

It is really BIG companies plus BIG government plus BIG media that is running this country (into the ground).

In a more perfect world, the "occupy" movement, the Tea Party and the libertarians would have been able to drop their pre-conceived notions of one another and had some level-headed discussions about finding middle ground on a lot of issues and could have been a true counter-weight to the ruling elite.

06-21-2013, 11:03 AM

NCRAVEN

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

You continue to miss my point completely. I am in not talking about social welfare policy. I am talking about racist language (that is sometimes coded).

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Welfare should have nothing to do with race, and ideally it would not when people use the word. The point I am making, however, is that Republican politicians use this word to subtly refer to specific groups of people, like blacks. The word "handouts" is similar.

See Romney fucking up with his 47% comment. He said half the country is expecting "handouts" or something similar, but it can be very reasonably inferred that he was referring to black people, whose vote he mostly had to give up on trying to get.

The only person I see in this thread that thinks these "coded" words are inferring to blacks, hispanics or any other minority is you.

If you (the royal you) think or assume that when someone says "handouts" or welfare" that they are trying to code their language and I don't uncode it to mean a black person but you do, who is the racist?

06-22-2013, 04:16 AM

AirFlacco

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

What does welfare have to do with race? There are far more whites on welfare than any other ethnic group.

I think you're confusing the topics a bit.

There's more whites in the population - about 70% are white while under 14% are black.
So if you break it down by percent it's a lot higher percentage of blacks on well fare than
whites.

About 28% of blacks are on well fare as opposed to about 5% of whites.

06-24-2013, 08:24 AM

Greg

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Interesting article that plainly states some ugly truths.

"Republicans aren’t all racist. But the party actively cultivates racists as voters."

It does this with coded words to Republican voters (e.g., "welfare," "handouts," etc.) and by following in the footsteps of elected Republican officials, who seem to get caught with racist emails/remarks on an almost monthly basis.

Republicans are a party of bad ideas and Democrats are a party of no ideas. A Republican stands up and says "I got a really bad idea!" and then the Democrat stands up and says "And I can make it shittier!"

-Lewis Black

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

06-24-2013, 04:35 PM

BigPlayReceiver

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Republicans are a party of bad ideas and Democrats are a party of no ideas. A Republican stands up and says "I got a really bad idea!" and then the Democrat stands up and says "And I can make it shittier!"

-Lewis Black

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

On an inverse note perhaps...the "my guy/gal is great" syndrome needs to stop.

Last fall only 15% of Americans approved of Congress' performance. (This spring it's 10%.) Yet... Back in November 90% of sitting congressmen won their elections.

And most want term limits?
We're a nation of fools.

06-24-2013, 04:52 PM

NCRAVEN

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPlayReceiver

On an inverse note perhaps...the "my guy/gal is great" syndrome needs to stop.

Last fall only 15% of Americans approved of Congress' performance. (This spring it's 10%.) Yet... Back in November 90% of sitting congressmen won their elections.

And most want term limits?
We're a nation of fools.

But but but... it's not my guy... it's the other party that's the problem. :grbac:

06-24-2013, 09:16 PM

wickedsolo

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPlayReceiver

On an inverse note perhaps...the "my guy/gal is great" syndrome needs to stop.

Last fall only 15% of Americans approved of Congress' performance. (This spring it's 10%.) Yet... Back in November 90% of sitting congressmen won their elections.

And most want term limits?
We're a nation of fools.

Fools? No.

Lazy? Inherently.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

06-24-2013, 09:45 PM

Sirdowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Fools? No.

Lazy? Inherently.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

Truer words never spoken.

"it is a constant law of human nature that the more a man has to indulge in, the less disposed he is to endure the discipline of toil-that is to say, the less willing he is to produce that which is to be consumed. Labor ceases to be functional in life; it becomes something that is grudgingly traded for that competence, or that superfluity, which everyone has a "right" to. A society spoiled in this manner may be compared to a drunkard: the more he imbibes the less is he able to work and acquire the means to indulge his habit. A great material establishment, by its very temptation to luxuriousness, unfits the owner for the labor necessary to maintain it, as has been observed countless times in the histories of individuals and of nations."

-Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences

06-25-2013, 12:41 PM

HoustonRaven

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Democrat legislator, Ryan Winkler of MN just called Justice Thomas an "Uncle Tom" on Twitter.

It has since been deleted and he's issued an apology.

RepRyanWinkler 12:02pm via web

@atrupar I did not understand "Uncle Tom" as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however.

06-25-2013, 12:50 PM

NCRAVEN

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

There is a debate that Uncle Tom is racist term?????

06-25-2013, 03:33 PM

HoustonRaven

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

There is a debate that Uncle Tom is racist term?????

Dems are allowed to use the term since they are in the right all the time.

I think people are being a bit too dismissive of this issue raised by ak. The attitude that "both sides do it so it's ok" is not a legimate point. We should hold our political leaders to a high standard by pointing out when they're behavior is sub par. Pandering to a base and creating a hostile political environment should not acceptable. Whatever you call this rhetoric, racist, sexist, etc. doesn't matter. America should be above that. I may be more of an idealist here than usual.

The problem with the words used by Republicans and Democrats is that it creates a climate of hate and prejudice. There are 4 types of speech that create this type of environment:

Sound familiar? Sounds like American politics in the 21st Century. How did this breakdown in political discussion occur? I'm not sure. It seems since 9/11 alot has changed. Not saying 9/11 is a direct cause, just since that day the US has never been the same for a number of reasons.

How do we restore sanity into the national dialogue? First one political party doesn't hold a monopoly on righteousness. Both leave alot to be desired. Second we should actually pay attention to when people point out when and how this "covert hate speech" is used. Dismissing people outright is in part how we got here to begin with.

06-25-2013, 07:56 PM

akashicrecorder

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

Let's try to re-group.

So each political party uses certain terms, phrases, "code words" with their political base to...wait for it....

GET ELECTED

But at the end of the day, what they actually implement in terms of social welfare / foreign / economic policy is really no different than the "other" party.

Let me know when you catch up and then we can have a serious discussion on the issues without the silly party masks.

Rambling, incoherent, and myriad other adjectives, but most of all barely relevant to my original point.

06-25-2013, 08:02 PM

akashicrecorder

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

The only person I see in this thread that thinks these "coded" words are inferring to blacks, hispanics or any other minority is you.

Fortunately, this thread is the beginning and end of the whole world and contains all the people therein. That way, if only I mention an issue on a thread with five participants, then my point is invalid.

(/sarcasm)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

If you (the royal you) think or assume that when someone says "handouts" or welfare" that they are trying to code their language and I don't uncode it to mean a black person but you do, who is the racist?

1) Just because you (both you personally and the royal you) do not acknowledge or see something does not mean the something isn't real. 2) It's a common mistake people make: calling people racist is racist! Uh, no, it's not. Making unfounded assumptions about the character traits of people based on what race they are is racist. Noticing it when people are being racist is not racist.

I think people are being a bit too dismissive of this issue raised by ak. The attitude that "both sides do it so it's ok" is not a legimate point. We should hold our political leaders to a high standard by pointing out when they're behavior is sub par. Pandering to a base and creating a hostile political environment should not acceptable. Whatever you call this rhetoric, racist, sexist, etc. doesn't matter. America should be above that. I may be more of an idealist here than usual.

The problem with the words used by Republicans and Democrats is that it creates a climate of hate and prejudice. There are 4 types of speech that create this type of environment:

Sound familiar? Sounds like American politics in the 21st Century. How did this breakdown in political discussion occur? I'm not sure. It seems since 9/11 alot has changed. Not saying 9/11 is a direct cause, just since that day the US has never been the same for a number of reasons.

How do we restore sanity into the national dialogue? First one political party doesn't hold a monopoly on righteousness. Both leave alot to be desired. Second we should actually pay attention to when people point out when and how this "covert hate speech" is used. Dismissing people outright is in part how we got here to begin with.

Nobody is making the "both sides do it so its ok" argument.

The argument that's being successfully portrayed is that one side is no better than the other when it comes to racism.

Both parties need to ferret out these scumbags. But one person here seems to think one party in particular is rainbows and puppy whiskers when it comes to race relations.

06-25-2013, 10:13 PM

NCRAVEN

Re: Virulent Racism in the Republican Party

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

1) Just because you (both you personally and the royal you) do not acknowledge or see something does not mean the something isn't real. 2) It's a common mistake people make: calling people racist is racist! Uh, no, it's not. Making unfounded assumptions about the character traits of people based on what race they are is racist. Noticing it when people are being racist is not racist.

I never said calling someone a racist is racist. Where did you get that from?

I said when you assume that something is racist that isn't racist e.g. "handouts" that means you were the one that thought "handouts" was racist, MAKING YOU THE RACIST.

Help me out folks, am I not explaining this properly or she playing stupid?